1 2026:CGHC:19315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 516 of 2026 Smt. Shruti Pal W/o Shri Sujoy Sarkar Aged About 33 Years R/o Mogra 229, Talpuri B Block, Ruabandha, Risali, Bhilai, Post Civic Center Bhilai, International Coloney, Teh. And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Sujoy Sarkar S/o Late Shri Amarendranath Sarkar Aged About 43 Years R/o Behind The Akshay Gurukul, Lane No. 10, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. For respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /04/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.428/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent, Sujoy Sarkar, was solemnized in 2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and traditions. The applicant belongs to Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, and at the request of the respondent’s family, the marriage ceremony was held at Hotel Intercity International, Bilaspur. Shortly after the marriage, the respondent’s mother took custody of all the applicant’s jewellery on the pretext of safety, and the same has not been returned till date. Thereafter, the applicant was allegedly subjected to harassment and was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial home in 2016 on false allegations regarding insufficient dowry, and was left at her parental home by the respondent. The respondent is employed as an officer in the Housing Loan Department of LIC of India and was earning around Rs.1,40,000 per month. Despite repeated efforts by the applicant’s family for reconciliation, the respondent did not resume cohabitation. Over time, the applicant’s family faced serious difficulties, including the death of her father in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic, and no support was extended by the respondent or his family. Due to financial hardship, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 CrPC in 2022 seeking maintenance. Subsequently, the respondent filed a divorce petition in 2023, which was allowed in 2025. Relying upon the said 3 divorce decree, the Family Court dismissed the applicant’s application for maintenance on the ground that she was residing separately without sufficient cause and had treated the respondent with cruelty. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present petition challenging the dismissal of her maintenance claim. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant submits that despite her father incurring substantial expenses for the marriage, including cash, gold, and other valuable articles, the respondent continued to harass her on the ground of insufficient dowry and raised further demands which could not be fulfilled. The applicant has maintained a clean character, has not remarried, and is legally entitled to maintenance. It is further contended that the respondent has fraudulently obtained a decree of divorce, which is under challenge before this Court, and has unlawfully retained her gold and silver ornaments of significant value, making the denial of maintenance unjust and liable to be set aside. He further submits that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and wrongly concluded that the applicant was living separately without sufficient cause, despite the respondent never seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent, instead of preserving the matrimonial relationship, subjected the applicant to harassment and misused his position and resources to obtain a favourable order. A domestic violence case against the respondent is still pending, and the impugned 4 order is therefore unjust, arbitrary, and passed without due consideration of material facts. He also submits that the respondent is financially well-settled, earning a substantial monthly income with no dependents, whereas she has been left destitute after her father’s death and bears responsibility for her ailing mother and mentally ill sister. Despite her efforts to save the marriage, she was forcibly evicted and denied re-entry into her matrimonial home. In such circumstances, the denial of maintenance is harsh and inequitable, and it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and appropriate maintenance be granted in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant, holding that the applicant is residing separately from her husband without any sufficient or justifiable cause. The Court has relied upon her own admissions in cross- examination, absence of any prior complaint regarding dowry harassment, and the findings recorded in the divorce decree to conclude that she had deserted the respondent. It has further been observed that efforts for reconciliation were made by the respondent’s family, which were not accepted by the applicant, and therefore it cannot be said that she was forced to live 5 separately. The Court has also taken into consideration that the applicant is a well-educated, professionally qualified woman (Post Graduate in Pharmacy) and is capable of earning her livelihood. Accordingly, in light of Section 125(4) CrPC, the learned Family Court held that since the applicant refused to reside with her husband without sufficient cause and is capable of maintaining herself, she is not entitled to any maintenance, and thus her application has been dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil